Jump to content

Talk:Sazerac Company

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RfC: Should the article identify the chairman of the board of this company?

[edit]

Should the article identify the chairman of the board of this company? (Please see prior discussion at Talk:Sazerac Company for background information on this topic.) —BarrelProof (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is normal practice to name the senior officers of companies - the CEO, chairman, etc. I see no reason to exclude this information and privacy is not a reason to exclude it. The names of the officers are a matter of public record and can be found in a number of places (e.g., here) QuiteUnusual (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, To my knowledge it is common practice to identify key officers of companies. There is no reason to exclude this information on grounds of "respecting their privacy" as stated on User:Ccharters user page - especially when a quick google search of the company reveals this information openly. I should also point out that as an employee of Sazerac Company user Ccharters is in immediate breach of Wikipedia:NPOV and could be considered to have a conflict of interest on the subject and therefore automatically refrained from editing articles related to the Sazerac Company. MisterShiney ✉ 16:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simply NO.--Fox1942 (talk) 10:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any particular reason? MisterShiney ✉ 11:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is not important. Fox1942 (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To me it seems pretty important who is running a company, and my impression is that virtually all (non-stub) articles about companies include such information. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We wouldn't include it generally, unless there is a specific reason to. It may belong under Key People in the infobox. Alternatively, for some companies a single person is synonymous with the brand or played an influential role in its history. For example, Joel Smilow played such a huge role in the history of Playtex, I created an entire section on it. However, we shouldn't include it just because - it should be included only if doing so is representative of quality source material. (Hoovers not being that great a source) CorporateM (Talk) 17:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I can understand that William Goldring would like to keep an understated personna but this article is not about him. Its about a company. I don't know about his preferences for publicity but Wikipedia articles should be scholarly and complete. The article must avoid mentioning his phone number and email address to protect his privacy.--Wikishagnik (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Wikipedia is not censored. This is key information to the article, and must be included. ★★RetroLord★★ 12:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a catalog

[edit]

It is not Wikilpedia policy to have long simple lists of products. If someone wants to add sections that discuss the importance of particular products, that is fine. However, it is a violation of WP:NOTCATALOG to simply list dozens of products. Wikipedia is not a source of all knowledge. Rogermx (talk) 02:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rogermx’- I do actually know that this should not be an exhaustive list. So, rather than a blanket revert, you should submit a list, *SPECIFICALLY* of the products you believe should not be on the list & why.

MissTofATX (talk) 06:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX[reply]

Actually policy works in the other direction; On Wikipedia consensus must be established to include rather than exclude. I agree with Rogermx's edit, as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I would support someone composing a list of company products they feel should be added to the article, assuming their are any.--SamHolt6 (talk) 06:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I’m asking is what criteria is being used specifically to determine what should or should not should be included. If someone has a good reason foe what to include or exclude, they should explain the logic of their proposed changes. Otherwise, it seems completely arbitrary.

“Any Questions? Any Ansers?” lol MissTofATX (talk) 06:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX[reply]

@SamHolt6 - can you answer any of my questions above?

    • What I’m saying, for Example...”Barton Has Several Varities, so we should probably be included our list,...meanwhile, Sweet Carolinas is only in the listing of one variety. What should we do to determine if we should show Sweet Carolinas in the listing?”.....Hope somebody out there can clarify this....

It stands to reason that no one has answered my questions yet . If you’re sure that you’re right, them you could answer easily. Just sayin’. I did say that we could talk about what needs to be removed...was not dead set on the whole list. MissTofATX (talk) 07:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)MissTOfATX[reply]

You're missing the point - the whole thing looks like advertising. See WP:NOT. We don't need anything this promotional. Please don't revert again. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not try to repost the product list...I moved on and that’s completely separate from listing acquisitions. Please give a specific example?

MissTofATX (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX[reply]

  • I would suggest first re-adding products that have Wikipedia articles, then others that have a particular significance to the history or growth plans of the company, or to consumers, with some explanations. There must be some interesting stories to see. Rogermx (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rogermx, thanks for your response. Those are good suggestions and I’ll work on them.

MissTofATX (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX[reply]

Historical Acquisitions and Joint Ventures

[edit]

@SmallBones ....what are you referring to by promotinal info? Everything there is factual. Do you have a specific example of something?

MissTofATX (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX[reply]

Reverted without reason?

[edit]

@SamHolt6....you wouldn’t have even had time to review what I wrote...so why? MissTofATX (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX MissTofATX (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MissTofATX: I rolled back your edits as they were fairly extensive and made without gaining consensus on this talk page. From my view much of the new content is in no way dissimilar from press releases and trivial mentions, and thus not noteworthy enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia (also a likely WP:UNDUE issue.) Given that you were advised against editing without gaining consensus before, were warned about the contentious nature of this article (due to aggressive paid editing in the past) and failed to correctly ping other involved editors, I am going to strongly suggest you put forward changes you want to make to the article on this talk page before you make further changes to the article. WP:RfC is also a possibility you may want to look into.--SamHolt6 (talk) 10:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SamHolt6...I thought your issue was with lists of products? and Smallbones was with advertising phraseolgy/worried about paid editors? Most liquor brands on wikipedia have detailed chronology on their pages, so as I said today, I completely overhauled what I had that seemed like advertisements. It's all bare bone facts, completely independent sources, I’ve disclosed I’m not a paid editor...the whole 9 yards. I did only ping @smallbones on my talk page, told them what I was working on, invited them to see it in sandbox - no response. You didn’t respond to any of my other questions above, so how would I know to ping you or anybody else in particular...Also, right above this thread is another discussion I created a few days ago about historical info, no response from anyone. I absolutely would like to discuss things before mass reversions, but apparently not many do. Communication is a two way street.

I just looked above....I did actually ping you@SamHolt6. & I tried to take @rogermx’s suggestions in my revision, which I feel I did effectively for the most part.

MissTofATX (talk) 11:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX[reply]

The real story of Sazerac + Bill Goldring

[edit]

Sorry that I haven't had much time for this article, but there is a clear problem with it. There's been so much effort trying to cram in the whole product list (or alternatively the whole record of product acquisitions) with low grade trade journal refs, that the real story of Sazerac is missing. Saz is the family owned business of billionaire William A. Goldring ($5.2 billion? I better check) Essentially founded in 1948, but rejiggered about 2010. I better recheck everything but a very different view of the business is documented in the folllowing:

  • "Bourbon Dynasty". Freeman - The alumni magazine of the A.B. Freeman School of Business at Tulane University. Summer 2017. Retrieved April 17, 2018.
  • Coffey, Brendan (December 16, 2016). "Cheap-Liquor Billionaire Looks Abroad as Sales Slow". Bloomberg. Retrieved April 17, 2018. subscription only, but summarized in the next source
  • "New Orleans liquor billionaire looks abroad as US market slows". Greater Baton Rouge Business Report. December 16, 2016. Retrieved April 17, 2018.
  • Forman, Jay (May 2012). "LIFTING A GLASS Bill Goldring". New Orleans Magazine. Retrieved April 17, 2018. this or something similar is already a ref in the infobox

And by searching for William A. Goldring, who essentially is the business, we'll find a lot more - let us please describe the business and stop promoting it with product lists. We just can't include its 300 low quality brands anywhere in Wikipedia. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@Smallbones:...that’s interesting, but the other day you’re supposed issue was with the information being promotional, advertising, and written by a paid editor. I eliminated anything that sounded promotional, answered your question about being a paid editor: I AM NOT! And you flaked on the conversation on my talk page where you alleged there were lots of paid editors running rampant on the page, and you did not respond to questions about that from others. I can see you’ve been online in the days since, but have chosen not to respond, even though being given an more than abundant opportunity.

MissTofATX (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX[reply]

I don't respond to people who appear to be baiting me. Smallbones(smalltalk) 12:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Smallbones: baiting you? That’s rich considering you were slandering others. “Do yourself a favor” and don’t dish it out if you can’t take it.

MissTofATX (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX MissTofATX (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Definition of bait (from Merriam-Webster)
transitive verb
1 a : to persecute or exasperate with unjust, malicious, or persistent attacks - bait minority groups : to try to make angry with criticism or insults - baiting a politician during a debate"
If you'd like to dispute my editing, please take it to ArbCom, or WP:COIN. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Smallbones: My comment had nothing to due with editing, it was your accusations towards others. As I said, don’t dish it out if you can’t take it.

MissTofATX (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX[reply]

Taaka

[edit]

Now that the Taaka section has been removed, we have a small problem with Taaka. It's a redirect page that points here, but there is nothing here about Taaka. I have been unable to find any good sources about the Taaka acquisition. If we aren't going to provide any information here about Taaka, the redirect should probably be deleted. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sazerac_Company&oldid=1259469438"